Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S4 · Q5 Company president: For the management

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Company president: For the management consultant position, we shall interview only those applicants who have worked for management consulting firms generally recognized as in the top 1 percent of firms worldwide.

Conclusion

We will eventually select one of the best consultants available.

Evidence

We plan to interview only applicants who have worked for the top 1% of consulting firms.

Evaluation

If you only interview people who work for the top 1% of consulting firms, are you guaranteed to get someone who is a top 1% consultant? Not necessarily. Are we assuming that only the best consultants work at the best firms? Couldn't a firm be really good but still have some employees that are pretty mediocre?

This author is committing a Whole vs. Part flaw, thinking that since the the company these employees work for are the best at consulting, each employee from those firms will be the best at consulting.

Goal

Look for something naming the Whole vs. Part flaw, or something pointing out the possible objection that there could the best firms in the world could still have some mediocre employees.

The company president's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Correct
takes for granted that only
Why this is right
Is the author assuming that only the best consultants work for the top firms? Yes, that would look like, "work for top firm --> best consultants" The author is definitely assuming that, "if this applicant worked for one of the top firms, then we can be sure that they are one of the best consultants".
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
81% picked this
generalizes from too small a
Bad Conclusion Match Not "Sampling"
The author's conclusion isn't much of a generalization. It's only making a claim about the eventual applicant they hire. This answer describes the Famous Flaw of Sampling, in which we worry that the sample is too small, biased, or unrepresentative. The author is definitely making an assumption about the top 1% of firms (all their consultants are among the best), but he isn't taking something that's true of the top 1% of firms and then generalizing it about all consulting firms.
3% picked this
takes for granted that if
Reversal
The author is taking for granted that if something is true of a collection (if a consulting firm is among the best), then it is true of each member of that collection (each consultant from those firms is among the best). But this answer gives us those ideas in reverse. This answer describes a move from Part to Whole, but our argument was a move from Whole to Part.
14% picked this
presumes, without providing warrant, that
Out of Scope: "accept the job"
The conclusion is only about whether they will have / won't have selected one of the best consultants. The conclusion doesn't care whether the applicant they select goes on to accept / turn down the offer.
1% picked this
presumes, without providing justification, that
Too Strong: "at every task"
Is the author assuming that a highly competent consultant is also great a cooking, at playing violin, at organizing a closet? Of course not. He's only assuming they're good at consulting.
1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free